Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The appellant challenged the encashment of a bank guarantee by the revenue during the pendency of an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the bank guarantee, furnished as security pending final adjudication, does not constitute payment of duty and cannot be encashed without the Tribunal's permission. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found the revenue's action improper and contrary to Section 27 of the Customs Act, which cannot be used to unjustly retain amounts not legally due. The impugned order permitting encashment was set aside, and the revenue was directed to refund the amount secured by the bank guarantee to the appellant forthwith. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
The appellant challenged the encashment of a bank guarantee by the revenue during the pendency of an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the bank guarantee, furnished as security pending final adjudication, does not constitute payment of duty and cannot be encashed without the Tribunal's permission. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found the revenue's action improper and contrary to Section 27 of the Customs Act, which cannot be used to unjustly retain amounts not legally due. The impugned order permitting encashment was set aside, and the revenue was directed to refund the amount secured by the bank guarantee to the appellant forthwith. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.